Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

The Empress Vs. Shibo Behara

The Empress vs Shibo Behara

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jan 20, 1881
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/851813

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860J, Section 211 - Sanction to prosecution for making false charge. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Empress

Respondent

Shibo Behara

Legal References

Cases Referred
Nusibunnissa Bihee v. Sheikh Erad Ali
Reported In
(1881)ILR6Cal584

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of 1860j, section 211 - sanction to prosecution for making false charge. - mitter, j.1. whether the judge was right or not in postponing the trial after it had once begun, i think this court has the power to quash an illegal commitment at any stage of a criminal proceeding.2. in these two cases i am of opinion that the commitments should be set aside on the ground that the sanction for prosecution under section 211 was illegally given. whatever might have been said in nusibunnissa bihee v. sheikh erad ali (4 c. l. r., 413), the later cases have distinctly laid it down that a sanction for prosecution under section 211 given without hearing all the witnesses whom a complainant wishes to produce in court, is illegal. in these cases, therefore, the original orders sanctioning prosecution under section 211 are illegal. that being so, the commitments are also illegal. i would, therefore, set them aside as recommended by the judge.maclean, j.3. the principle involved in these cases is the same as that involved in the case of chukrodhur pati just disposed of; and as i am of opinion that any convictions had upon the trials under the commitments which we are asked to quash would be set aside, i think the simplest course is to set aside the proceedings at this stage.

Full Judgment

Mitter, J.

1. Whether the Judge was right or not in postponing the trial after it had once begun, I think this Court has the power to quash an illegal commitment at any stage of a criminal proceeding.

2. In these two cases I am of opinion that the commitments should be set aside on the ground that the sanction for prosecution under Section 211 was illegally given. Whatever might have been said in Nusibunnissa Bihee v. Sheikh Erad Ali (4 C. L. R., 413), the later cases have distinctly laid it down that a sanction for prosecution under Section 211 given without hearing all the witnesses whom a complainant wishes to produce in Court, is illegal. In these cases, therefore, the original orders sanctioning prosecution under Section 211 are illegal. That being so, the commitments are also illegal. I would, therefore, set them aside as recommended by the Judge.

Maclean, J.

3. The principle involved in these cases is the same as that involved in the case of Chukrodhur Pati just disposed of; and as I am of opinion that any convictions had upon the trials under the commitments which we are asked to quash would be set aside, I think the simplest course is to set aside the proceedings at this stage.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial